Brexit discussion thread II

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/23/irish-report-shows-eu-lack-of-respect-for-uk-handling-of-brexit

The Guardian now reporting on the leaked Irish document.

The gloves have really come off in the past week. Firstly we had Irish bashing in the Tory newspapers last week after the meetings between Governments that clearly went very badly.

Arlene Foster followed up with an attack yesterday on Varadkar and his government.

Now today, the Irish side get some retaliation in and this will certainly up the ante as it is firmly orchastrated to embarrass Davis and Johnson in particular.

kowtow wrote: »

I think that's the key point here and clearly that is what the UK will need to achieve with its soft / electronic border at the frontier itself. I'm fairly confident that they can do this to the satisfaction of the WTO and still put no hardware at the border.

Why are you fairly confident about this?

Panrich wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/23/irish-report-shows-eu-lack-of-respect-for-uk-handling-of-brexit

The Guardian now reporting on the leaked Irish document.

The gloves have really come off in the past week. Firstly we had Irish bashing in the Tory newspapers last week after the meetings between Governments that clearly went very badly.

Arlene Foster followed up with an attack yesterday on Varadkar and his government.

Now today, the Irish side get some retaliation in and this will certainly up the ante as it is firmly orchastrated to embarrass Davis and Johnson in particular.

The Guardian had reported on Wednesday how senior figures in the Spanish government were left surprised by claims from Davis last week that Spain was pushing for a trade deal. “It is amazing how the British misread us,” one senior source said. “Almost as if we speak a different language. They come to us, we say: ‘We will see what we can do.’ But it means nothing.”

From same link . It's amazing. We constantly see this UK says we've made progress. EU or member state replies "What meeting where you in lads".

Jeremy Corbyn :“Seventeen months after the referendum they say there can be no hard border but haven’t worked out how. They say they’ll protect workers rights, then vote against it. They say they’ll protect environmental rights, then vote against it. They promise action on tax avoidance but vote against it time and time again.”

Where has Corbyn been? On a journey, say those close by. A lifetime of instinctive “capitalist club” Euroscepticism has been shed. Passionate distress over Brexit from his young supporters and his trade union allies has brought him round. Besides, the facts have changed. His vague, abstract distaste for the EU has given way to facing the hard reality of what Brexit means: inflicting most harm on those he cares about most. If only those on the opposite benches were on the same reality-check journey.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/23/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-tories-labour-eu

Are Labour starting the U turn?

kowtow wrote: »

If you heard or saw the debate you will not have failed to notice the emphasis on the word "we" which I have emboldened above.

The trouble is the British government are claiming they can Square the circle but won't give their working out.

Quite rightly the EU don't believe them

kowtow wrote: »

I think that's the key point here and clearly that is what the UK will need to achieve with its soft / electronic border at the frontier itself. I'm fairly confident that they can do this to the satisfaction of the WTO and still put no hardware at the border. It is less likely that Ireland and the EU can achieve the same from our side.

That's still only vapourware at this time, so the DExEU better get to draft that tech specification quick-smart. There's about a week left to submit it. Tic-toc-tic-toc-<...>

kowtow wrote: »

Clearly it serves our purposes qua EU members to paint the UK negotiators as utterly confused and chaotic. That picture has been built up since before the start of the talks and the Tories are doing a great job of playing into our hands. However.. That picture of chaos only really helps the EU if it leads to a Corbyn govt. + A really EU friendly fudge.. basically a Brexit which doesn't mean Brexit.

Which is presumably why we here and many of the hardened remainers in the UK keep rehearsing the Brexit arguments ad nauseam.

The trouble is we misjduge.. IMO the degree to which economics, immigration and the rest define the referendum. They were important but perhaps they were not overriding. In the end the UK prize sovereignty perhaps even more than prosperity (they would hardly be the first.. And sovereignty is not in this sense a relative or shareable concept).. and there is a deep seated mistrust of the EU, it's politicians and it's mechanisms. In my opinion those two factors carried the vote and our behaviour and that of the EU throughout the talks absolutely justifies and bears out those concerns. We are behaving.. for perfectly sound tactical and political reasons.. like the technocratic Empire the UK so instinctively detests.

There is no pretty outcome to this problem, particularly for Ireland, and as much as we might lay the blame at Britain's door we must recognise the real roots of their decision lie with the EU and it's genesis as much as anywhere else.

It is your prerogative to recognise those factors as roots of the voting decision if you wish. And it is also your prerogative to claim these roots to be "the real" roots. But that does not make you right: just opinionated

As for me, these real roots of the decision lie at least in part in 4 decades' worth of misinformation of the British public about the nature, workings and purpose of the EU -at a very fundamental level- and about 2 decades' worth of economical growth-led policymaking and spectacularly-wasteful immigration/ID systems failures by successive British governments.

Other such roots which I hold to be 'real' (related to the component of misinformation above), also include the woeful state educational system here, and its consistent mismanagement by successive interfering governments for the past decade at least; and the mass-cretinisation of a sizeable portion of the British electorate (and others-, but British here in context) through their mass-adoption of easily-manipulable social media.

By way of example, the British were free at all times to implement all sorts of restrictive covenants about EU immigrants to curb those very factors that influenced the vote insofar as immigration and the alleged wage suppressing topics are concerned. Now, how much of the British electorate knew that whether pre-referendum, or is even aware of it now? You can bet it's not 52%, or even 48%.

And you would want the EU27 to 'recognise' (as in 'respect', no doubt) this state of affairs? Condone the British public's mushrooming about the EU?

Come off it :rolleyes:

kowtow wrote: »

And we - of all the nations- can hardly blame the British for voting with their hearts rather than their heads.

There is no blame to be apportioned for the voting, particularly since it could have been left to its intended purpose of informing policy making in the national interest.

The only blame to be apportioned is in respect of the consequences of that voting, that are wholly down to the political exploitation of that voting since the referendum.

And in that respect, again there is none other than the British -specifically, the Tory party and its media machine- to blame.

If the UK wants to stand on its own in the big wide world, it needs to learn that adulting is hard and begins with assuming one's own responsibilities. Welcome to the grown-ups league.

flaneur wrote: »

It has plenty of money. It could sell some assets, raise tax etc.

Why should we care about UK internal financial matters? They clearly don't currently give a hoot about ours.

What it did internally with Scotland and Wales or the North of England is a matter for UK domestic politics.

This is effectively ripping up international trade and other agreements.

If they left the political aspects of the EU and stayed in the customs union, fair enough. But no, they're also ripping up the trade agreements and causing economic chaos both for themselves and their neighbours.

Brexit isn't cost free, particularly if you're going to just burn all your trade agreements and links with neighbouring countries.

Cake & eat it seems to be the aim here.
It'll be one of those cheap and nasty cakes by the looks of it.

I've very little sympathy for what us just a jingoistic, illogical move where all pragmatism, sense and neighbourly good will is being very deliberately thrown away.

It's the arrogance of it all.

kowtow wrote: »

I think I made it pretty clear that it was only my opinion, and that perhaps we sometimes were too quick to fall into "blame the brexiteers, blame the Tories, blame the Tory press" mode. Cameron went to Europe to get a deal on immigration and he hardly had an interest in talking it down but still he lost the vote.

I think the thread which runs through the whole problem is the differing view of sovereignty and I think it's notable that it is an issue the EU fudges again and again, referring - for example - to "competence" instead. Whilst we are quick to blame the British press for being anti Europe we don't appear to question our own press which is much more unified and notably uncritical of EU diktat and dogma.

The fundamental issue of sovereignty is going to remain a running sore in the EU even, perhaps more, with the newly reinvigorated core. If one starts with the reasonable proposition that sovereignty and de facto tax raising powers are indivisible then it's going to be a question which troubles Ireland over the coming years perhaps even more than Brexit does.

I don't think it's wrong to try and understand the role that conflicting views of the role of the nation state have in terms of Brexit - actually I think it's central to making objective decisions about our own place in the world and that of our children. What disturbs me is the slightly nervous shrill tone of debate in Ireland over Brexit - it would pay us perhaps to be more thoughtful and even handed in our assessment. But that's only my view, apparently.

Just like Solo has been asked time and time again.

Can you give examples specific ones of how the UKs 'Sovereignty' is impacted by Brussels. How their 'Sovereignty' will improve after brexit is over. And what specific actions they will take outside of the controls they have today which they have not implemented at all to kerb illegal immigration.


Specific ones, and not the wishy washy feely sovereignty feels like 'x' to me as an individual.

Bit of cold hard facts if you will

J Mysterio wrote: »

flaneur wrote: »

I think the simplest solution for the Northern border in the short to medium term is probably to sue the UK for economic damage caused to Donegal and the border counties.

It’s not unreasonable that they would pay some considerable contribution towards cleaning up the mess they’re creating, by ensuring Donegal in particular is not left isolated.

A major contribution towards perhaps a road upgrade from Donegal and also the other border regions impacted would be a fairly reasonable thing to include in the divorce bill.

Also I would assume some kind of Brexit compensation package would need to be put in place for companies that have their businesses profoundly impacted.

Maybe €2-3 billion Euro.

Also, a major investment package for Northern Ireland.

I think the notion they can just cause absolute complete mayhem for these regions and then walk away is insanity.

They’re walking away from commitments, undermining people's businesses, regional economics and all sorts of risks are being created for a fragile and very recent peace process. I think the very least they could do is ensure that the resources are put in place to deal with the fallout of that political decision.

I have no doubts they'll storm off claiming they don't owe anyone anything and they're free to so whatever they like, but it makes the UK look like a bunch of untrustworthy, backstabbers that will rip up any agreement they sign. They also look completely incompetent. I think they've done huge damage to their own reputation.

The notion that Ireland might be better off following them is crazy too. What would we end up with?
Outside the EU and utterly dependent on a country that is currently run by a bunch of tabloid newspapers and has demonstrated absolutely no interest being a reasonable trading partner.

If we did leave, how long would it be before they are moaning about Irish FDI or something else and throwing us to the wolves?

As we are clearly going to stand out ground on Irish interests in the coming months, I think you can brace yourself for an avalanche or tabloid paddywhacky, the likes or which haven't seen in decades.

This is a significant point and I completely agree. The Sun article was just an indication of what's to come.

Not only do we need to worry about old divisions and problems... but we need to consider how this is creating new disputes too.

The English seem to think Ireland is like their little brother who will follow them or do as they are told. They are badly underestimating our resolve.

I disagree really. The average English person thinks of Ireland as a nice place to go on holiday, and has a vague yearning to live there. As a paddy in England, I encounter this over and over again.
The average English person is too busy keeping the head down and paying the bills to even think about the northern Irish problem, and would, I suspect, be rightly horrified.
The average cabinet member, I'd agree absolutely.

c_man wrote: »

Sorry for commenting on something which other posters were talking about. Didn't want to ruin the big laugh on it.

Boo, Brexit etc! - Is that more along the lines you want?

Various UK cities have held the position over the decades, and it was London's own interpretation of the referendum result that made them decide to leave the EEA.

kowtow wrote: »

I think I made it pretty clear that it was only my opinion, and that perhaps we sometimes were too quick to fall into "blame the brexiteers, blame the Tories, blame the Tory press" mode. Cameron went to Europe to get a deal on immigration and he hardly had an interest in talking it down but still he lost the vote.

That you did, but I'm not sure how the end sentence follows from the earlier ones: I think it's telling that the EU is very seriously contemplating the 2-speed model (more vs less integration) amongst the EU27, right this minute.

As I remember posting back in Feb 2016, whether here or on another forum, Cameron with his negotations had successfully positioned the UK to exit the integrating model of the EU, whereby the UK could have been the heavyweight of the diverging group of less-integrating members (with a high probability of including the Nehtherlands, Poland, Denmark, <...>), mirroring Germany's position for the more-integrating members (including France, Italy, Spain, <...>), and all without leaving the EU and imperilling its socio-economic situation and growth. That was the smart political play.

But well, Cameron's win (and yes, it was a win) wasn't the slam-dunk of victorious exceptionalism, which UKIP and other assorted Eurosceptics had vociferously whipped the population about around the time.

So we are where we are, the obscurantists and snake oil merchants still have the helm. Stay on that boat at your own risk, and your mileage will vary

kowtow wrote: »

I think the thread which runs through the whole problem is the differing view of sovereignty and I think it's notable that it is an issue the EU fudges again and again, referring - for example - to "competence" instead. Whilst we are quick to blame the British press for being anti Europe we don't appear to question our own press which is much more unified and notably uncritical of EU diktat and dogma.

The fundamental issue of sovereignty is going to remain a running sore in the EU even, perhaps more, with the newly reinvigorated core. If one starts with the reasonable proposition that sovereignty and de facto tax raising powers are indivisible then it's going to be a question which troubles Ireland over the coming years perhaps even more than Brexit does.

I don't think it's wrong to try and understand the role that conflicting views of the role of the nation state have in terms of Brexit - actually I think it's central to making objective decisions about our own place in the world and that of our children. What disturbs me is the slightly nervous shrill tone of debate in Ireland over Brexit - it would pay us perhaps to be more thoughtful and even handed in our assessment. But that's only my view, apparently.

The issue of sovereignty is not a sore point in the EU in the least [EDIT: insofar as current aspects of pooled sovereignty are concerned]: many, if not most electorates (and certainly the case amongst the EU14 - excluding the UK obviously) are fully aware of how the EU works, how aspects of sovereignty are pooled for mutual benefits (if not in practice sometimes, then certainly by intent at all times), and of the fact that Member States remain wholly sovereign across all non-delegated matters. Well, as sovereign as their other multifarious bilateral and multilateral treaty obligations (WTO, NATO, ECHR, <...>) allow them to be, that is (funny that, I haven't seem many further referenda mooted about these other sovereignty-stealing treaties ).

In France and Belgium at least, it's been standard history and geography curriculum subject-matter for decades, and across the tuition years according to the conceptual/technical difficulty of the principles to teach (what the TEU is and how it came about isn't taught in Year 1, put it that way...but it is taught indeed). Going by my Yr 9 kid's curriculum, I can't exactly say the same for the UK.

Besides that, voting polls through the ages attest to the above: the fellow EU27 "Leavers" hardly amount to a roaring electoral success, GFC, mass refugee crises and Brexit notwithstanding.

Let's not have this "sovereignty" guff in here again, please. Especially not in the context posited by a country wherein Parliament was so gutless as to have to rely on the initiative and funds of a private citizen, to issue court proceedings for clarifying something as constitutionally fundamental as 'sovereignty'. It really demeans the poor soul who brings it up again.

Don't mistake me though: I hear your argument about the potential for discord in pooling further sovereign prerogatives of those member states seeking further integration. But this is a completely moot topic when discussing Brexit, since these will be of no concern to the UK howsoever.